For 46 years Roger Ebert, who has died aged 70 after suffering from cancer, wrote on films for the Chicago Sun-Times, and did not want to stop. The one thing he welcomed when announcing a "leave of presence" earlier this week was the realisation of a fantasy: "reviewing only the movies I want to review".

His following in the English-speaking world was unrivalled. He and Gene Siskel, his co-host on At the Movies on television, had a street named after them – Siskel and Ebert Way – near the CBS Studios in Chicago where they worked together. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer prize for criticism.

He has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and received honorary degrees from various institutions of learning. In 2007, Forbes magazine named Ebert "the most powerful pundit in America".

Why all the accolades? As a race, film critics rarely arouse affection. However, the rotund and bespectacled Ebert had a way of ingratiating himself with his readers even when they disagreed with his lucid and fair reviews. He had a popular touch without ever dumbing down. He would approach every film, whether a masterpiece of world cinema or the latest Hollywood abomination, with the same acuity.

Ebert, who described his critical approach to films as "relative, not absolute", reviewed a film for what he felt would be its prospective audience. But he was aware that "most people choose movies that provide exactly what they expect, and tell them things they already know … What happens between the time we are eight and the time we are 20 that robs us of our childhood curiosity? What turns movie-lovers into consumers? What does it say about you if you only want to see what everybody else is seeing?"

There were more intellectual and important American critics – he was no Manny Farber or Andrew Sarris – but few were more passionate and personal. He seemed oblivious to the traumatic changes in scholarly film criticism that took place since he started writing reviews for the Sun-Times in 1967. His choice of top 10 movies (for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll) was conventional: Aguirre, Wrath of God; Apocalypse Now; Citizen Kane; Dekalog; La Dolce Vita; The General; Raging Bull; 2001: A Space Odyssey; Tokyo Story; and Vertigo.

Ten years later, for the 2012 poll, he had not altered his opinion one jot, except for, rather startlingly, replacing Dekalog with Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. Nevertheless, during the first decade of the new century, at a time when film criticism was in crisis – due to the flood of cybercritics drowning out the voices of most professionals – Ebert's views were still heard and listened to even when he was forced to leave TV after losing the ability to speak following an operation, one of many, for thyroid cancer. As the Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw, an admirer, pointed out: "Ebert can blog as extensively as he likes, and he tweets as to the manner born! Even his voice has been recreated for a voice-machine (by a Scottish company), using his extensive archive of DVD commentaries."

Ebert was born in Illinois, a third-generation American, his paternal grandparents being German Catholic immigrants. After graduating from the University of Illinois, Ebert got a job as reporter on the Sun-Times, where he stayed for the rest of his career. In 1970, he co-wrote the screenplay for the Russ Meyer film Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. It was a rare excursion into big-budget cinema by Meyer, who had gained a cult following in the 1960s with his "nudie-cutie" films. It turned out to be Meyer's favourite: "Roger and I embraced that one to our bosoms, or co-bosoms," he explained.

The film is a self-styled morality tale in which each character represents a vice or a virtue. The diaphanous plot, with a lot of perverted sex, drugs and backstabbing, concerns an all-girl rock group, the Carry Nations, handled by Z-man Barzell (John Lazar), who has lines like "You will drink the black sperm of my vengeance." Ebert's fellow critic Alexander Walker described it as "a film whose total idiotic, monstrous badness raises it to the pitch of near-irresistible entertainment". Ten years after its release, Ebert had the chutzpah to write a rave review of it.

He wrote two further films with Meyer, Up! (1976), this time hidden under the name of Reinhold Timme, and Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens (1979), both featuring violence and Meyer's trademark huge breasts. The wonder was that Ebert was ever taken seriously as a film critic again. Actually, the fact that he had written screenplays, whatever their value, perhaps gave him more credibility.

Although he was seldom cruel and gave the impression of always wanting to like a film, he never pulled his punches when he felt that the target deserved it. For example, reviewing Rob Reiner's North (1994), he expostulated: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

Ebert was in the majority in his excoriation of Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980). "I know, I know: he's trying to demystify the west, and all those other things hotshot directors try to do when they don't really want to make a western. But this movie is a study in wretched excess. It is so smoky, so dusty, so foggy, so unfocused and so brownish yellow that you want to try Windex on the screen. A director is in deep trouble when we do not even enjoy the primary act of looking at his picture … his movie is $36m thrown to the winds. It is the most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen, and remember, I've seen Paint Your Wagon."

Ebert's reactions were primarily instinctive rather than cerebral, as evident in his review of Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers (1972): "It is hypnotic, disturbing, frightening. It envelops us in a red membrane of passion and fear, and, in some way, that I do not fully understand, it employs taboos and ancient superstitions to make its effect. We slip lower in our seats, feeling claustrophobia and sexual disquiet, realising that we have been surrounded by the vision of a film-maker who has complete mastery of his art."

In 1975, Ebert and Siskel, of the Chicago Tribune, began co-hosting a weekly film review television show, Sneak Previews, for the Chicago public broadcasting station. The show was picked up by PBS in 1978 for national distribution. A year later, partly at the instigation of Siskel, Ebert, a recovering alcoholic, quit drinking and became a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. In 1982, the duo moved to a syndicated commercial television show named At the Movies, where they became widely known for their "thumbs up/thumbs down" reactions to films.

After Siskel died aged 53 in 1999, Ebert teamed up with Richard Roeper for a show that ran until 2006. This was the year that Ebert suffered post-surgical complications and lost his voice. In 2010, Ebert had his lower jaw removed, yet he continued to be as active as possible, helped by the trial attorney Charlie "Chaz" Hammel-Smith, his wife since 1992, who survives him.

• Roger Joseph Ebert, film critic and screenwriter, born 18 June 1942; died 4 April 2013

you know it's bad year for films when not even hat boy is excited for anything in 2013. anyways i recently saw trailer for new show hannibal that start tomorrow that based on lector series. it's seem decent and i'm glad to see madds mikkelsen getting more recognition as being a fine actor. plus i bet harmless will get a girl boner finding out this news.

[youtube]36S1cgEW9bk [/youtube]

Hugh Dancy is also a bit underrated as well.

I hope it is a pretty good series.

Also RIP Roger Ebert.

04-04-2013 10:22 AM

Lopez

Re: movie stuff

Saw Argo and Life of Pi finally, I liked both but Life of Pi was definitely better from an artistic point of view. Argo was great, especially the first part of the film with John Goodman . Great dialogue but ultimately the film didn't really have any deeper message/meaning, which is why it wasn't as good as many other Best Picture -winners.

04-04-2013 09:39 AM

Thanos

Re: movie stuff

you know it's bad year for films when not even hat boy is excited for anything in 2013. anyways i recently saw trailer for new show hannibal that start tomorrow that based on lector series. it's seem decent and i'm glad to see madds mikkelsen getting more recognition as being a fine actor. plus i bet harmless will get a girl boner finding out this news.

I haven't read any Virginia Woolf, to be honest I have the feeling that I would find her boring... I did translate bits of Mrs Dalloway and I didn't enjoy the style too much. But I should probably try one day, if only because it's considered a classic and a landmark in the history of literature, and it's never good to ignore that kind of work (especially for an English teacher )

I don't think the problem is that women are more sophisticated, but rather, that they can identify with a feminine perspective. I don't know why you say they are more "androgynous", but it's interesting, because it relates to one of the hypotheses I have thought of to explain men's lack of interest in Austen.
My idea is linked to a famous test called the "Bechdel test". This test is made for movies, not books, but I think what it demonstrates can be useful for other areas as well. It shows in a very convincing way that basically, an overwhelming majority of the movies which are regarded as "good movies" today (ie movies that are critically appraised, or deemed Oscar-worthy) are movies about men. And in spite of what people say about feminism and how it's supposedly outdated, it is still absolutely true today.
This woman has several videos covering the problem, and although I sometimes find her way of speaking a little annoying, and don't always agree with her analyses of certain films, I think she has a lot of great vids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Pu...d-cDA&index=19
My idea is that women have grown to be more and more interested in stories about men (partly because they have appropriated some "male behaviour" in order to become emancipated, and partly because, as the video shows, they do not have much choice in terms of movies). Several of my favourite films are on the list as "male-centered" and I did not even notice there were no women in them. I have many female friends who love superhero movies, or action movies with big manly men and explosions, etc... So in that way, yes you could say they are a bit more "androgynous".
Yet I do not have the feeling that there has been a similar movement in the other direction from men. And of course, in this case, too, one of the reasons why men do not seem to take interest in female-centered movies or films is that there really aren't many good female-centered movies. Another reason is that most of the time, women's stories are deemed boring or uninteresting. They are only good enough to be told in stereotypical chick flicks, most of which are certainly not considered as good movies. Also, I have often noticed that women's talk is often dismissed as having little value. When you're a girl talking to another girl, very often, people assume you must be chatting about trivial matters. If you're debating with another girl, it's quite common to see people (even other girls) referring to that as "cat fighting". So these are only examples, but I have the impression that this idea that women's talk cannot be of great interest, and the general lack of representation of women's perspectives in movies are the reasons why it is still difficult for many guys to identify with stories about women. And Austen's stories are really stories about women (arguably, they talk about men too, but in this case, for once, it's the men who are stock characters that only matter in relation to the female characters).

I need to think about it, because I will have great difficulties drawing a list of my top 10 favourite movies. Way too many movies to put in there, with different criteria

I definitely enjoy the top female performances (meryl streep) as much as the male but you're right, it's a little bizarre that I'm drawing a blank trying to remember other seminal performances by some other actresses. I really liked the older actress in "A Requiem for a Dream". Will put your theory to the test when I've a little more time.

Ok, I'm workin' on the list, piece by piece. Aiming for quality. You've got me thinking about a lot of different things for sure. For me, nature vs. nurture has always been an interesting concept to debate.

Funny you should mention the gender gap Sophitia, perhaps you’re on to something here . That idea got me thinking about another book which seemed to polarize the sexes in my class, the famous “stream of consciousness” work by Virginia Woolf: Mrs. Dalloway. Not sure if you read it but it's essentially about a housewife walking around talking to herself lol. In hindsight, I think I remember the men being somewhat fidgety studying it, whereas the gals, being the more sophisticated and androgynous sex, were eating it up. I respect V.W. for her original style though, despite my “meh” attitude (at the time).

I haven't read any Virginia Woolf, to be honest I have the feeling that I would find her boring... I did translate bits of Mrs Dalloway and I didn't enjoy the style too much. But I should probably try one day, if only because it's considered a classic and a landmark in the history of literature, and it's never good to ignore that kind of work (especially for an English teacher )

I don't think the problem is that women are more sophisticated, but rather, that they can identify with a feminine perspective. I don't know why you say they are more "androgynous", but it's interesting, because it relates to one of the hypotheses I have thought of to explain men's lack of interest in Austen.
My idea is linked to a famous test called the "Bechdel test". This test is made for movies, not books, but I think what it demonstrates can be useful for other areas as well. It shows in a very convincing way that basically, an overwhelming majority of the movies which are regarded as "good movies" today (ie movies that are critically appraised, or deemed Oscar-worthy) are movies about men. And in spite of what people say about feminism and how it's supposedly outdated, it is still absolutely true today.
This woman has several videos covering the problem, and although I sometimes find her way of speaking a little annoying, and don't always agree with her analyses of certain films, I think she has a lot of great vids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Pu...d-cDA&index=19
My idea is that women have grown to be more and more interested in stories about men (partly because they have appropriated some "male behaviour" in order to become emancipated, and partly because, as the video shows, they do not have much choice in terms of movies). Several of my favourite films are on the list as "male-centered" and I did not even notice there were no women in them. I have many female friends who love superhero movies, or action movies with big manly men and explosions, etc... So in that way, yes you could say they are a bit more "androgynous".
Yet I do not have the feeling that there has been a similar movement in the other direction from men. And of course, in this case, too, one of the reasons why men do not seem to take interest in female-centered movies or films is that there really aren't many good female-centered movies. Another reason is that most of the time, women's stories are deemed boring or uninteresting. They are only good enough to be told in stereotypical chick flicks, most of which are certainly not considered as good movies. Also, I have often noticed that women's talk is often dismissed as having little value. When you're a girl talking to another girl, very often, people assume you must be chatting about trivial matters. If you're debating with another girl, it's quite common to see people (even other girls) referring to that as "cat fighting". So these are only examples, but I have the impression that this idea that women's talk cannot be of great interest, and the general lack of representation of women's perspectives in movies are the reasons why it is still difficult for many guys to identify with stories about women. And Austen's stories are really stories about women (arguably, they talk about men too, but in this case, for once, it's the men who are stock characters that only matter in relation to the female characters).

I thought it would be fun if we listed our top 10 favourite movies of all time and reviewed them briefly. What ya think? Too bad we can’t watch movies together, we’d have A LOT to talk about hehe . Alas, it is not a "small world afterall."

I need to think about it, because I will have great difficulties drawing a list of my top 10 favourite movies. Way too many movies to put in there, with different criteria

Hehe, it's funny because I've just engaged in a heated debate on Facebook with male friends about Pride and Prejudice and how it is absolutely NOT a harlequin romance novel at all.
And, you know, I am the type of person who is a strong advocate of the gender theory, etc, so I don't like to tell people they act in a certain way because they're male or female. But with Austen, I have always had the feeling that there was a huge gender gap in the ability to appreciate her works or not. What I mean is, many women rate her very highly and love her works, while men overwhelmingly despise her and find her overrated (or they are at least mystified as to why she should be considered a great author).

I'm still trying to find out the reason why, but usually, even male readers who say that they love the works of the Brontë sisters or other female authors are somehow struggling to relate to Jane Austen's works. They often see her books as "glorified romance novels", which they certainly aren't. I have a number of hypotheses to explain that, but I don't have time to carry some proper research so I'd better stick to the Joe Wright movie. You'll just have to take my word that there is far more to P&P than glorified harlequin romance
(This interesting article addresses the issue: http://gabrielswharf.wordpress.com/2...ck-hates-jane/)

Now, I have read this book probably around 5 times, not only because I love it, but because I had to study it intensively for one of my exams (incidentally, I also had to study Joe Wright's adaptation).
At first viewing, I didn't like the Joe Wright version at all. Of course, I had already seen "THE" version of Pride and Prejudice, the one by the BBC starring Colin Firth and Jenifer Ehle, which is for me the most faithful, pitch-perfect adaptation you could think of.
To me, Joe Wright's version is absolutely not faithful to the novel, in many ways.

But with hindsight, I think I understand what his purpose was. After all, we do not need ten faithful versions of Pride and Prejudice. Just like he seems to have done with Anna Karenina (judging by the reviews and trailers, since I haven't seen it), Joe Wright only tried to give us his own, very personal interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. And, while analyzing it with the help of a teacher, I did discover that he had sometimes done a pretty good job, with a few really insightful inventions, even though they were more or less lost on me when I viewed it for the first time (I'm thinking for instance about the Pemberley statues, when Lizzy's gaze lingers on the statue of a woman with a veil, which is most probably there to represent her prejudice, her own "veiled" eyes...)

Now, to go back to the actors... McFadyen portrays Darcy far more as a "miserable", bored-looking man, than as the haughty, detestable man who antagonizes people with his superior manner. BTW when Lizzy first sees him, she remarks that he looks "miserable". That's not really what the sarcastic, arrogant M. Darcy is like in the book. Darcy does not inspire pity or mockery because he looks sad, he inspires outrage because he appears so full of himself.
As for Lizzy, it's more difficult to explain why I don't think Keira Knightley portrays her well... I don't know, as you said, she seems to have retained only the strong, independent and unconventional side of Elizabeth. She turned her into some kind of feminist stereotype. Elizabeth is not just a sassy girl who likes to shock people and laugh about it, she is also rather calm and subtle. And she is not strictly speaking a feminist. Some critics will even argue that she is not a feminist character AT ALL, since one of the main themes of the book is how Elizabeth is "humbled" when she discovers that she has misjudged Darcy's character completely, although she used to take pride in her ability to judge people's characters. Elizabeth is not someone who intentionally acts in a shocking manner, or who takes pleasure in shocking people. She is not that emancipated from social norms. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the book, this kind of complex mix of subversion and social conservatism.

So on the whole, I thought Joe Wright had changed the nature of both main characters. Lizzy is turned into some kind of sassy, lively and rather stereotypical feminist figure, while Darcy is turned into a miserable man who needs the bright Lizzy to discover he's alive... That's not really what the book is about IMO. It feels a bit like an "updating" of the book, but at the same time, it dumbs it down a little.
I think Jenifer Ehle is a far more subtle actress and comes much closer to capturing Lizzy's complexity than Keira Knightley does.
But then again, it is Joe Wright's personal version of Pride and Prejudice, so he's free to do what he likes with it, and purists can stick to the BBC version

Oh and also, I have to admit, after watching part of "King Arthur" a few days ago, that Knightley's teeth tend to annoy me intensely (she seems to act with her teeth, if that makes sense)... That might influence my appreciation of her acting in the wrong way

Haha, Keira is toothy in her normal roles, but when she played that wild woman in King Arthur, she really let us have it with her pearly whites. She must have loved that role, being able to bare her fangs at will.

Funny you should mention the gender gap Sophitia, perhaps you’re on to something here . That idea got me thinking about another book which seemed to polarize the sexes in my class, the famous “stream of consciousness” work by Virginia Woolf: Mrs. Dalloway. Not sure if you read it but it's essentially about a housewife walking around talking to herself lol. In hindsight, I think I remember the men being somewhat fidgety studying it, whereas the gals, being the more sophisticated and androgynous sex, were eating it up. I respect V.W. for her original style though, despite my “meh” attitude (at the time).

I’m not surprised at all that you feel that the BBC treatment of P&P was better. I have the '95 version which I really like. I have quite a BBC collection including most of Shakespeare’s works and even the '83 version of Jane Eyre (starring James Bond lol). I really liked J.E. After all, what’s not to like about having your wife locked up in the attic while you entertain your mistress. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! (lol – soooo just kidding, please don’t despise me). SCTV did some satire on J.E called Jane Airhead...so funny. Maybe you can see it on youtube.

I strongly believe that most of the great works of literature would be better served through a long mini-series. Almost impossible to do faithful renditions through grossly abridged 2 hour movies.

I thought it would be fun if we listed our top 10 favourite movies of all time and reviewed them briefly. What ya think? Too bad we can’t watch movies together, we’d have A LOT to talk about hehe . Alas, it is not a "small world afterall."

It’s been a few years since I read P&P. I was not too fond of it and found it a little harlequin romancy. From what I remember, Lizzy was a strong, confident, and independent woman in stark contrast to the typical female norms of the time. I believe that's what Austin was going for. I thought Kiera portrayed those qualities really well.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts about it.

Hehe, it's funny because I've just engaged in a heated debate on Facebook with male friends about Pride and Prejudice and how it is absolutely NOT a harlequin romance novel at all.
And, you know, I am the type of person who is a strong advocate of the gender theory, etc, so I don't like to tell people they act in a certain way because they're male or female. But with Austen, I have always had the feeling that there was a huge gender gap in the ability to appreciate her works or not. What I mean is, many women rate her very highly and love her works, while men overwhelmingly despise her and find her overrated (or they are at least mystified as to why she should be considered a great author).

I'm still trying to find out the reason why, but usually, even male readers who say that they love the works of the Brontë sisters or other female authors are somehow struggling to relate to Jane Austen's works. They often see her books as "glorified romance novels", which they certainly aren't. I have a number of hypotheses to explain that, but I don't have time to carry some proper research so I'd better stick to the Joe Wright movie. You'll just have to take my word that there is far more to P&P than glorified harlequin romance
(This interesting article addresses the issue: http://gabrielswharf.wordpress.com/2...ck-hates-jane/)

Now, I have read this book probably around 5 times, not only because I love it, but because I had to study it intensively for one of my exams (incidentally, I also had to study Joe Wright's adaptation).
At first viewing, I didn't like the Joe Wright version at all. Of course, I had already seen "THE" version of Pride and Prejudice, the one by the BBC starring Colin Firth and Jenifer Ehle, which is for me the most faithful, pitch-perfect adaptation you could think of.
To me, Joe Wright's version is absolutely not faithful to the novel, in many ways.

But with hindsight, I think I understand what his purpose was. After all, we do not need ten faithful versions of Pride and Prejudice. Just like he seems to have done with Anna Karenina (judging by the reviews and trailers, since I haven't seen it), Joe Wright only tried to give us his own, very personal interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. And, while analyzing it with the help of a teacher, I did discover that he had sometimes done a pretty good job, with a few really insightful inventions, even though they were more or less lost on me when I viewed it for the first time (I'm thinking for instance about the Pemberley statues, when Lizzy's gaze lingers on the statue of a woman with a veil, which is most probably there to represent her prejudice, her own "veiled" eyes...)

Now, to go back to the actors... McFadyen portrays Darcy far more as a "miserable", bored-looking man, than as the haughty, detestable man who antagonizes people with his superior manner. BTW when Lizzy first sees him, she remarks that he looks "miserable". That's not really what the sarcastic, arrogant M. Darcy is like in the book. Darcy does not inspire pity or mockery because he looks sad, he inspires outrage because he appears so full of himself.
As for Lizzy, it's more difficult to explain why I don't think Keira Knightley portrays her well... I don't know, as you said, she seems to have retained only the strong, independent and unconventional side of Elizabeth. She turned her into some kind of feminist stereotype. Elizabeth is not just a sassy girl who likes to shock people and laugh about it, she is also rather calm and subtle. And she is not strictly speaking a feminist. Some critics will even argue that she is not a feminist character AT ALL, since one of the main themes of the book is how Elizabeth is "humbled" when she discovers that she has misjudged Darcy's character completely, although she used to take pride in her ability to judge people's characters. Elizabeth is not someone who intentionally acts in a shocking manner, or who takes pleasure in shocking people. She is not that emancipated from social norms. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the book, this kind of complex mix of subversion and social conservatism.

So on the whole, I thought Joe Wright had changed the nature of both main characters. Lizzy is turned into some kind of sassy, lively and rather stereotypical feminist figure, while Darcy is turned into a miserable man who needs the bright Lizzy to discover he's alive... That's not really what the book is about IMO. It feels a bit like an "updating" of the book, but at the same time, it dumbs it down a little.
I think Jenifer Ehle is a far more subtle actress and comes much closer to capturing Lizzy's complexity than Keira Knightley does.
But then again, it is Joe Wright's personal version of Pride and Prejudice, so he's free to do what he likes with it, and purists can stick to the BBC version

Oh and also, I have to admit, after watching part of "King Arthur" a few days ago, that Knightley's teeth tend to annoy me intensely (she seems to act with her teeth, if that makes sense)... That might influence my appreciation of her acting in the wrong way

Piece of crap Argo winning BP, but hey, they rarely give the BP to a decent film, so who cares, last one was No Country For Old Men, maybe Hurt Locker, this year Silver Linings was the best one out of those ten.

Bro, do not get me started on this - DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THIS !!!

Agro is > than Lincoln and Django....yeah right.

Second, Ben and hollywood really screwed us Canadians by portraying the rescue as a mainly CIA initiative when even Jimmy Carter admitted that is was almost entirely a Canadian thang. That's the sad part. Mainstream movies are a business, and scripts must conform to the main goal of selling tickets. With regards to the american audience, this means making movies where americans are always portrayed as heroes. Foreign heroes don't sell in the US. I'm sure there are sophisticated film viewers in the states, but they don't comprise the majority of the market.

Ben should also be ashamed of himself for that acceptance speech. I wonder if he gagged when he said "thank you canada."

02-28-2013 03:02 AM

Transcender

Re: movie stuff

Piece of crap Argo winning BP, but hey, they rarely give the BP to a decent film, so who cares, last one was No Country For Old Men, maybe Hurt Locker, this year Silver Linings was the best one out of those ten.

02-28-2013 02:56 AM

Mr. Oracle

Re: movie stuff

@ Sophitia36

Quote:

No, I have nothing at all against Anne Hathaway. But I think her performance in Les Miserables was ridiculously hyped up. For me, crying hysterically in front of a camera does not constitute great acting... But on the whole, I blame the director, not the actors, for the disaster that was Les Mis.

If all she does is cry, he should have got Natalie Portman for the role lol. I agree, it doesn’t take much skill to cry. All it would take for me to cry on cue is to think of my childhood kitten “muffin” which died mysteriously. I’m inconsolable. Give me an oscar.

Quote:

I'm also really tired of all the fuss that they make around actors doing crazy things for roles. I know, it's a paradox, because I love Daniel Day-Lewis, and God knows they did (and still do) make a lot of fuss around how he stays in character constantly, blablabla...
But I don't care. What I'm interested in is the result. If it works like that for Daniel, good for him, he's amazing in practically all of his roles. But I'm getting really annoyed by the fact that promoting an actor or an actress for an Oscar now almost entirely revolves around, not the performance itself, but all the sacrifices that an actor has made for the role.

Funny you should mention that because I was thinking about a recent Anthony Hopkins interview, where he in typical tight lipped British fashion took a stab at in-character actors, saying that his experience was that most of them were “not very good at all.” DDL is the exception but I thought Hopkins was hilarious.

Quote:

IMO, people need to stop with the religion of authenticity, and remember that the essence of cinema, of theatre, or acting, is PRETENDING. So who cares if Anne Hathaway lost plenty of weight to play Fantine? Who cares that she cut her hair for real? Make-up artists exist for a reason. Would her performance be even better if she had also got her teeth removed "for real"? If she had caught tuberculosis (or whatever the disease was) "for real"?

Yes, perhaps there should be a different award for that kind of commitment. The oscar is about convincing acting. Period.

Quote:

I love Natalie Portman and yet I felt exactly the same about Black Swan. All that fuss about how she supposedly had reached the level of a professional dancer by training like mad once a year... That's ridiculous. A professional dancer trains like this for her entire life. And in the end, it turned out that she had been dubbed in the vast majority of scenes, anyway.
Once again, the hype was about everything but her actual performance. Was she better in Black Swan than in, say, V for Vendetta? I don't think so. Would her performance in Black Swan have been less good if she had NOT lost weight and claimed to have danced most of the scenes for real? No. But losing weight and pretending to be a dancer, that's what created the hype and led her to the Oscar.

I tell you what. I found her actual performance underwhelming as well and I’ll tell you why ! I remember Al Pacino getting panned for his performance in The Merchant of Venice. Critics who were familiar with Shakespeare and the bard, criticized him for taking the safe route in his portrayal of Shylock. They noticed that an unskilled actor takes the easy way out by performing the role in a hushed, subdued manner. Essentially very little range to be criticised. That’s how Portman played that role. She whispered her way through the whole movie. Sheesh, I noticed this right away and boy was I indignant!

Quote:

As for Keira Knightley, to be honest, I think the problem with her is that she gets cast in roles that are just not appropriate for her. Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice does have some interesting aspects (I used to hate it, then I studied it in detail, and I saw why it wasn't a bad film after all, though it's not a faithful adaptation at all). But for me, Knightley makes an awful Elizabeth Bennet. It's not that she's bad, she's just so far from being Lizzy.

It’s been a few years since I read P&P. I was not too fond of it and found it a little harlequin romancy. From what I remember, Lizzy was a strong, confident, and independent woman in stark contrast to the typical female norms of the time. I believe that's what Austin was going for. I thought Kiera portrayed those qualities really well.

Not surprised that some of the top critics are calling DDL the greatest actor EVER. That says a lot since he's in no small company with: brando, deniro, pacino, newman, hopkins, nicholson and many others.

So you don't like Anne? I think she has a lot of potential as she gets more roles that aren't the cutesy, adolescent type. She has big talent and more range than portman or knightley. No one cries better than Portman though. She can cry hysterically at the drop of a hat , but can't seem to shake off that adolescent vibe; I can't decide if she's endearing or gets on my nerves. I was very impressed with Knightley in Pride and Prejudice, but it seems that she takes that maniacal toothy grin to too many roles . Her attempt to play a mentally ill patient in A Dangerous Method was beyond comical. I never laughed that hard since dumb and dumber, and that's not what the director was going for.

I really think that Anne, like DDL is one of those rare actors that can truly morph into a role and become someone else.

No, I have nothing at all against Anne Hathaway. But I think her performance in Les Miserables was ridiculously hyped up. For me, crying hysterically in front of a camera does not constitute great acting... But on the whole, I blame the director, not the actors, for the disaster that was Les Mis.

I'm also really tired of all the fuss that they make around actors doing crazy things for roles. I know, it's a paradox, because I love Daniel Day-Lewis, and God knows they did (and still do) make a lot of fuss around how he stays in character constantly, blablabla...
But I don't care. What I'm interested in is the result. If it works like that for Daniel, good for him, he's amazing in practically all of his roles. But I'm getting really annoyed by the fact that promoting an actor or an actress for an Oscar now almost entirely revolves around, not the performance itself, but all the sacrifices that an actor has made for the role.

IMO, people need to stop with the religion of authenticity, and remember that the essence of cinema, of theatre, or acting, is PRETENDING. So who cares if Anne Hathaway lost plenty of weight to play Fantine? Who cares that she cut her hair for real? Make-up artists exist for a reason. Would her performance be even better if she had also got her teeth removed "for real"? If she had caught tuberculosis (or whatever the disease was) "for real"?
This "authencity" BS is exactly what makes films like Les Mis disastrous. For the sake of authenticity, they made the actors sing "for real", and as a result, the songs are really poor. They refused to even make a studio version, because that's not "authentic" enough. Well, maybe that's not authentic, but the songs would have been great instead of being barely average.

That reminds me of a story about a theatre director who, being obsessed with that "authenticity" trend, got outraged at the suggestion that he use "fake marble" for his set, even though the artists swore that it would look just like real marble (they were good at their jobs!) He decided to make real marble come all the way from Italy, and it cost a fortune. When the marble was installed, he suddenly realised: "but it's shiny! It reflects the lights far too much!" The artists said "Well, of course, it's shiny, it's marble." "But that won't do!" So in the end, they painted fake marble on the real marble...

I love Natalie Portman and yet I felt exactly the same about Black Swan. All that fuss about how she supposedly had reached the level of a professional dancer by training like mad once a year... That's ridiculous. A professional dancer trains like this for her entire life. And in the end, it turned out that she had been dubbed in the vast majority of scenes, anyway.
Once again, the hype was about everything but her actual performance. Was she better in Black Swan than in, say, V for Vendetta? I don't think so. Would her performance in Black Swan have been less good if she had NOT lost weight and claimed to have danced most of the scenes for real? No. But losing weight and pretending to be a dancer, that's what created the hype and led her to the Oscar.

As for Keira Knightley, to be honest, I think the problem with her is that she gets cast in roles that are just not appropriate for her. Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice does have some interesting aspects (I used to hate it, then I studied it in detail, and I saw why it wasn't a bad film after all, though it's not a faithful adaptation at all). But for me, Knightley makes an awful Elizabeth Bennet. It's not that she's bad, she's just so far from being Lizzy. Generally, I don't think she's necessarily a bad actress, but I've never been impressed by her in any particular role. I always feel she could be interchangeable with many other actresses. It could just be that I haven't seen her best movies, though (Anna Karenina, Atonement...). I rather liked her in The Duchess.

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.